Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as creator and only significant contributor has requested deletion. (WP:CSD case G7)Hiding talk 11:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ignore the Arbitration Committee

Either it's WP:POINT, or it's an attempted joke that fails at being funny. Delete. R adiant _>|< 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an appeal to anarchy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP WAS 4.250 18:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC) below is from that page's talk page:[reply]
"This in the context of and a response to Wikipedia talk:User Bill of Rights. The reality the article reflects is that the ArbCom has no more power over you than you choose to let it. The reality the article reflects is that the POINT is to build an encyclopedia, not create a wiki-legal system. The reality the article reflects is that people kicked out DO come back under other names, and if they don't cause trouble NO ONE CARES." and
"This is the only thing that has made me laugh today. Thanks."
- Actually, the ArbCom can ban or block you regardless of whether you choose to let it. Radiant_>|< 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pray tell dear sir; what is the mechanism used to detect such a thing when for example an anonomous user corrects a spelling error? WAS 4.250 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see Wikipedia:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I looked. What I saw has no relevance to the essay, this deletion vote on the essay or to my question; to the best of my knowledge. WAS 4.250 19:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        what is the mechanism used to detect such a thing when for example an anonomous user corrects a spelling error - the Check User process is the mechanism used to determine if an anonymous user is using the same or similar IP address as a blocked user. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Even if I am "not allowed to edit", my girlfriend Miss Notme IS allowed to edit. If one IP is blocked I can use an unblocked IP by any one of several means. The only EFFECTIVE block is a block on a type or style or viewpoint of editing that some idiot persists with even after being clearly and repeated told to cut it out. If that idiot then chooses to let his girlfried use his computer to make good and useful edits that are completely different than the type or style or viewpoint of editing that got him into trouble in the first place; then he, though his alternate persona (Miss Notme), can ignore the arbcom descion and edit Wikipedia. There not only is no mechanism to prevent this, there is no need for a mechanism to prevent this; since the rules exist to help us build an encyclopedia, not to mete out punishment. WAS 4.250 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Without question, Move to userspace. However, as a parody of WP:IAR, I find it not totally without merit.
Keep in Userspace Xoloz 19:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN or Delete, which ever gets more votes here, if it's a tie then Neutral. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --HappyCamper 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously inappropriate, encourages attempts to evade bans. DES ^(talk) 06:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nonsense --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN as very bad advice Ashibaka tock 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it. Can I call the vote over and I lost?

This was little more than a joke in the first place. I don't want it "in my space". I am not an admin or I'd just delete it myself. The actual and real issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin is what is at stake here. "Screw process" as the ArbCom member says to do or not. Your comments are welcome THERE. Somebody please delete this side joke here. Thank you. WAS 4.250 04:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.